blockchain

Bitcoin

ology (the study of)

cryptology

Plato

is concerned with moving the crowd from being the source of supply to being the 'intermediary' that actually runs and, implicitly, collectively owns the market itself.

blockchain' technologies that may alter crowd-based capitalism over the coming decade. (As I will explain later, they move the crowd from being the source of supply to being the 'intermediary' that actually runs and, implicitly, collectively owns the market itself.)

is problematic in that moving cash equity markets to a blockchain infrastructure would drive a significant increase of the overall transaction cost.

By disintermediating financial institutions, so the reasoning goes, multiple parties can conduct transactions seamlessly, without paying a commission. However, cost savings are dubious. 'Moving cash equity markets to a blockchain infrastructure would drive a significant increase of the overall transaction cost,' Pierron continues. 'Trading on a blockchain system would also be slower than traders would tolerate, and mistakes might be irreversible, potentially bringing huge losses.'

is problematic in that processing trades via the technology would not simplify the capital markets, but rather move the complexity around.

Processing trades via blockchain would not simplify the capital markets, but rather move the complexity around,' he adds.

is a Trojan Horse, sent by radical Libertarians to undermine the global financial system.

I've warned about the Libertarian context for Bitcoin before, but if any members of this devoted but misguided group believe that blockchain alone will disrupt the financial industry, they are out of touch with how cautious the industry is.

is trapped in a paradox. The more likely it is to disrupt the global financial system, the less likely it is to succeed because for disruption to be a positive business force, it must drive new competitive advantage, not simple chaos.

In fact, the more likely blockchain is to disrupt the global financial system, the less likely it is to succeed. For disruption to be a positive business force, it must drive new competitive advantage, not simple chaos. Blockchain may be disruptive, but it's still an open question whether it's too disruptive for its own good.

is problematic in that mistakes might be irreversible, potentially bringing huge losses.

is a technology with a tantalising, alchemical prospect: the creation of resolute trust among anonymous and far-flung participants in digital networks... it is a trust-shaped technology just as concerns spike about a deepening trust-shaped hole in public life.

On the face of it this is a tantalising, alchemical prospect: the creation of resolute trust among anonymous and far-flung participants in digital networks. Nor could this deus ex machina have timed its own invention any better: how useful for us to have hit upon a trust-shaped technology just as concerns spike about a deepening trust-shaped hole in public life.

is problematic in that because transactions are 'immutable', if an employ were to make a mistake, the company would just have to live with it.

Immutability: Often hailed as a positive, immutability is actually a concern for many industries as control of information is limited. What happens if an employee makes a mistake' There are no takesies backsies in blockchain so the company would just have to live with it. Private/permissioned blockchains are a potential solution to this problem (Deloitte)

blockchain, n.All

blockchain